First off, I'd like to apologize again for taking so long to figure out and write up my opinion. I still feel a little bit swamped with all of the information that I've reviewed to come to my opinion, and I certainly don't yet completely understand the full architecture of either upstart or systemd even though I've been working with them both for a while now
From the information which I have reviewed, and seen, either upstart or systemd are viable choices for Debian, but we must choose between them. Upstart has much clearer documentation than systemd, but systemd's documentation is sufficient.[1] Systemd's declarative style has the advantage of being directly parsable, but the disadvantage of forcing logic out into daemons... though that's probably where it should be in the first place.[2] Upstart's CLA is problematic, and coupled with the fact that the rest of the non-Debian distributions appear to be standardizing on systemd gives me pause. I'm not sure if this is actually a major concern, though, as long as Ubuntu continues using upstart. Systemd's socket-based activation and cgroup based tracking are technically superior to upstart, even though the latter causes problems with portability to non-linux systems. However, if we were to decide on upstart, we could have just a single init system everywhere, which would be beneficial.[3] Writing non-complicated unit or job files for systemd or upstart is fairly straightforward, and should be easy for the vast majority of packages. [A strong argument could be made that packages like spamass-milter which it isn't so straightforward are deficient.] With all that said, I think all of these considerations give me a slight preference for systemd over upstart, though I believe that whatever the committee decides on will be a great improvement over venerable SysV. I should point out that I have not extensively examined openrc, nor have I taken into account planned features and development in either systemd or upstart which could sway my opinion. Finally, thanks to everyone who has participated in this massive thread, writing position statements, and putting up with all of the questions that the CTTE has had. 1: For example, systemd could have much better introductory documentation for unit file writers than it currently has. It also describes many of its features in blog posts which are not written into a cohesive manual which flows. I suspect these will be rectified in the future, but I found it fairly frustrating to deal with. It would also be super-nice, since almost all of systemd's configuration is in /lib/systemd/system for there to be a manpage or similar which had all of them and pointers to documentation what they did, etc. 2: It's sort of annoying that systemd's declarative syntax has knobs like CondtionPathExists= etc, but doesn't have methods of then wrapping segments of the unit file in conditionals. Instead, the solution appears to be writing multiple unit files with the correct sets of Condition...= But perhaps I'm missing something. (This matters to be because of http://svn.donarmstrong.com/deb_pkgs/spamass-milter/trunk/debian/spamass-milter.init ) 3: Frankly, I don't want to support more than one set of init files; if the other architectures are to be release architectures, they really should get whatever the CTTE decides is the default init system ported to them, and the maintainers of that init system in Debian should accept patches to do so, even if it means that the default init system is less functional on those architectures than it would otherwise be. [Even without cgroups, it'll be superior to sysv, after all.] -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
